Every minute counts

[drstrange169]

I went through the Old Bailey cases. I chose 1858 to 1918 to keep it relevant to our time period.

Oozed got 25 hits, 21 were used as per the dictionary definition.

2 were used to describe getting information out of someone slowly.

And 2 were used to described flowing blood. in both those cases the victims were still alive and, as in the example below the amount of blood coming out was clearly explained.



Oozing got 72 hits.

65 were used as per the dictionary definition.



5 were used to describe flowing blood. Again, all the victims were alive and the about of flow was made clear.

Ooze got only 3 hits during the same time period. All of them were used as per the dictionary definition.

Based on those results, it is not impossible that Neil meant flowing blood, but it is very unlikely.

[drstrange169]

Thanks for the Old Bailey reports Christer, points worth considering and I'm off to at them now look now.

In the mean time, I've Googled, "a lot of blood oozed" as you suggested and it makes it clear that it means exactly what I, Gary and all the major (and probably minor) dictionary stated it means .. slow movement.





The etymology of the word makes it abundantly clear:

ooze (v.)

"to flow as ooze, percolate through the pores of a substance" (intrans.), also "emit in the shape of moisture" (trans.), late 14c., wosen, verbal derivative of Old English noun wos "juice, sap," from Proto-Germanic *wosan (source of Middle Low German wose "scum"), from same source as ooze (n.). The modern spelling is from late 16c. The Old English verb was wesan. Related: Oozed; oozing.

ooze (n.)
"fine soft mud or slime," Old English wase "soft mud, mire," from Proto-Germanic *waison (source also of Old Saxon waso "wet ground, mire," Old Norse veisa "pond of stagnant water"), probably from a PIE root meaning "wet." Modern spelling is from mid-1500s.

All in all, it is possible PC Neil mis-used the word, but the sheer weight of evidence strongly suggests he didn't.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish - In the three cases you cite from the Old Bailey archives, the three wounded people are still alive. Two of them don't even die. The witnesses may have used the word 'ooze' or 'oozing' but the victims' hearts were still pumping, so pressure was pushing the blood from them.

Nichols, by contrast, was dead. Her heart was stopped. Any 'oozing' noticed by the observers would have been strictly from gravity.

So you are describing the use of this word by people who are observing entirely different circumstances. That is relevant, is it not?

Cheers.

It depends, R J.

If you cut your thumb, it will not kill you (hopefully). But will the blood spurt out of the thumb, owing to the underlying heart pressure?

Nope.

It is only when we cut of main blood vessels, particularly arteries, that such a thing happens.

In my examples, we deal with a wound to the scalp (which will not produce a blood spurt) a wound close to the waist (that is not likely to have severed any main artery) and a wound where the witness HEARS the blood flow, comparing it to running water - and speaking about oozing.

If anything, the fact that people speak about oozing in living people further strengthens my argument since the bloodflow is more likely to be lively in such cases.

The overall issue is however one of a more general character: must "ooze" always mean trickling only very slowly and in small proportions? And that is where my three examples emphatically prove that this is not so, and it was not so in the mid 19th century either. It can - and could - describe quite a significant flow.

What has gotten lost to a degree in this discussion is that I do not mean that blood gushed out of Nichols as Neil saw her. If it had, then it should have produced a much larger quantity of blood underneath the neck, and we know that it didnīt (presumably owing to how most of the blood had already collected in the abdominal cavity as the throat was cut, as per Llewellyn).

What I envisage is a steady running, perhaps like when you tilt a small jug or two of maple syrup over your pancakes, as Neil took a look. That flow then kept on for a further few minutes until Mizen arrived. At this stage, just as the PC said, the blood was "still running" and "looking fresh", and the time of bleeding suggested is well within the realms suggested by professor Thiblin, who suggested a maximum bleeding time of ten to fifteen minutes at most.

So it is all in line; the bleeding, the partial coagulation, the timings, the blood running over the brim before Mizen arrives - all of it. And it points a VERY clear finger at Lechmere, Iīm afraid, not least since the pathologists both said that a bleeding time of 3-5 minutes was the likeliest span, although they both (as shown above) allowed for a longer time.

It is a chain of evidence that is very full and in itīs own bizarre way also beautiful in itīs completeness. To try and break it up, we need to certify that "ooze" means "will end very soon" or that Mizen believed that the blood had run for around half an hour as he lifted Nichols onto the stretcher, that he believed blood coming from a long dead person would look fresh and that he looked at the blood dripping onto the coagulated clot on the ground, thinking "Hey, look - that blood is somewhat coagulated!"

It only makes sense when we lay the pieces of the puzzle in a logical manner (he said, oozing with confidence... )

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fish - In the three cases you cite from the Old Bailey archives, the three wounded people are still alive. Two of them don't even die. The witnesses may have used the word 'ooze' or 'oozing' but the victims' hearts were still pumping, so pressure was pushing the blood from them.

Nichols, by contrast, was dead. Her heart was stopped. Any 'oozing' noticed by the observers would have been strictly from gravity.

So you are describing the use of this word by people who are observing entirely different circumstances. That is relevant, is it not?

Cheers.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Christer, you can Google all you want, but you are not going to change the meaning of ‘ooze’:

I havenīt changed the meaning of "ooze". I have posted examples from the 19:th century of how the word was many times used to describe a significant or very significant blood flow.

It is not about what the dictionaries say, Gary, itīs about how the common man makes use of a word, and very clearly, the common man in the mid 19th century spoke about how blood was "oozing out very bad indeed" and running down somebodyīs hair, how oozing blood sounded like running water and how blood could "ooze very profusely".

What shall we say to those who used the term like that? That they should have looked it up in dictionaries before doing so...?

What good does it do to point to a dictionary when we can show that the dictionaries do not cover the true/full use of a term? Language is a living beast, and it will change over time, rules or not. Spellings, meanings and grammar was not the same yesterday as it is today and tomorrow it will have changed again.

Thatīs why dictionaries need to be updated every now and then.

[MrBarnett]

OOZE

Synonyms: distill, drop, drip, percolate, perspire, sweat, drain, leak, transude.

Antonyms: rush, flow, stream, disgorge.


From,

A COMPLETE DICTIONARY

OF

SYNONYMS AND ANTONYMS,


OR


SYNONYMS AND WORDS OF OPPOSITE MEANING.


1898


THE RT. REV. SAMUEL FALLOWS, A.M., B.D.

[MrBarnett]

Just one more. Pay particular attention to the antonyms given here.

[MrBarnett]

[MrBarnett]

Sorry, Christer, you can Google all you want, but you are not going to change the meaning of ‘ooze’:

[Fisherman]

Dusty, the quotations from the Old Bailey records on the term "oozing" and how it was used in the 19:th century can serve as useful reading for you too, of course.

As for how papers did not use the word still, it does not take away from how the term was used in one report. There are scores of examples of how papers condense the material and fail to print terms that other papers do. That does not add up to the more complete reports being wrong, it adds up to the condensed reports not being as thorough.

[Fisherman]

Gary!

I came up with the idea of searching the Old Baily Records for the term "oozing", and I got 92 cases where that exact term was used. I did not search for "ooze", "oozed", etc, only for "oozing".

After having taken a look on the first twenty cases, I have three such cases I want to present to you. We will begin with the case against Jeremiah Cadogan for breaking peace and wounding, a case from the 4th of March 1839:


ANGUS M'DONALD . I was in the room when this happened—I did not see any body draw a knife, nor see it in any body's hand till I saw it in the possession of Smith, after the prosecutor was stabbed—I picked up a belt and sheath on the opposite side of the room to where the prisoner stood, about three minutes after the prosecutor was stabbed—I had not observed whether the prisoner had such a belt on—I saw the prisoner strike Wilson a blow, and at that very instant a noise came as if water was gushing out—I looked at Wilson, and saw the blood coming from him—the prisoner resumed the fight as if nothing had happened—Wilson was standing in his own defence—I had observed the prisoner stooping and feeling about his trowsers with both hands, immediately before this blow was given—there was a meeting between them, and I heard the blood ooze like water—whether it was a knife or not I cannot tell—it must have been the blow I saw that caused the oozing of blood.

If you can hear blood oozing like water, it will be running in significant quantities!

Here is the next case, that of Daniel Billington, also for reaking peace and wounding, and dating from 5th of April 1852:

EDWARD KENDELL (police-inspector, H). I went to the house and met Sweeney on the stairs—blood was oozing very profusely from a wound just above her waist—I saw her dress—it had a narrow cut about half an inch long, which appeared to have been done with some sharp instrument—I received this knife (produced) from William Hayes—he is not here—I did not see it picked up—there is blood on the point of it.

Last, but njot least, we have the case of Elizabeth Vickers, a case of killing and murder from the 4th of April 1853:

I got up on Monday morning between 7 and 8 o'clock—it was New Year's day when I saw the deceased—he was very jocular to me—very few words passed—I was not jocular to him; I said but very little; I merely smiled at what he said—his tailor had come there—he was a very jocular man when well—he had a dreadful bad wound—his hair was cut, and the blood was oozing out very bad indeed—it was on the right side, just about the temple; and there was a large lump on the temple—I saw the blood issuing from the wound, it ran down the hair.

These three cases should settle the issue about whether "oozing" can portray a substantial bleeding or not. I have little doubt that the 72 cases I did not check will provide more such examples.

And so my point stands that John Neil may have been talking about a substantial bleeding as he used the term "oozed" - and that would be in line with the initial interviews where Neil is quoted as having spoken of how Nichols was bleeding profusely. The exact term "oozing very profusely" is actually documented in the Daniel Billington case above.

[Fisherman]

It may be that I’ve misunderstood the meaning of ‘ooze’ all my life. I thought it described the slow, almost imperceptible movement of a liquid or a semi-liquid substance.

If you were to look briefly at a body with a trail of glistening blood leading from it to the pavement, could you be certain it was actually moving? I doubt it, but you might still say it was oozing from the body.

Sorry, the contradictory press descriptions really aren’t to be relied upon.

It really is a lot less about your perception of the term ”ooze” and a lot more about how the victorians in general - and specifically John Neil - understood and used it. The suggestion from your side would be that it bled so very little when Neil saw it that it could not have bled at all when Mizen did, but very clearly, Mizens testimony contradicts such a thing.
That is the picture that emerges.

Have a look at the sentence ”a lot of blood oozed” on Google, and you will see that it describes very substantial flows many times. Although the victorians did not write on Google, I think it must open up for another interpretation than yours. I have said it many times, and I see no reason not to stand by it.

[MrBarnett]

It may be that I’ve misunderstood the meaning of ‘ooze’ all my life. I thought it described the slow, almost imperceptible movement of a liquid or a semi-liquid substance.

If you were to look briefly at a body with a trail of glistening blood leading from it to the pavement, could you be certain it was actually moving? I doubt it, but you might still say it was oozing from the body.

Sorry, the contradictory press descriptions really aren’t to be relied upon.

[drstrange169]

Is there any independent confirmation that "Maizen" used the word "still" other than the error filled Addy report?


>>Because he was likely to describe the blood as "looking fresh" although he know it was nothing at all like fresh?<<

Can the Addy's version be relied on as accurate?


>>A question: If the blood was still running as Mizen looked at Nichols, (how) would that affect your take on Lechmere and his potential guilt?<<

It all depends on what definition of "running" is used'


>>PS. Is the "ooze" in "oozing with confidence" the same "ooze" as in trickle very slowly...?<<

Yes, somebody has so much confidence that it's, metaphorically, leaking out of his body.


>>PPS. Just checked Google for the term "a lot of blood oozed". 32 600 hits.<<

Yes, the number of internet hits are a wonderful guide to determine accurate information aren't they? I just googled, Qanon is true ...4,910,000 results (0.39 seconds)

[drstrange169]

If we are to take the "Addy" report as accurate the blood was "still" running after, "20 minutes past four".

iDd the Times and the Telegraph use the word "still"?